Don't Understand !!

[APHP]

I don't understand why some officials that call a foul with three minutes left in the game will not call the same foul a foul with second(s) left in the game. (i.e. Rich Fronheiser's comments in the Heinz 57 forum/post.) I've heard the comment that I (the official) don't want to determine the outcome of the game. If you don't whistle a foul when it is there with seconds left, then you are determining the outcome of the game--by penalizing one team and rewarding the other team...is that not helping determine the outcome of the game. Just because you pass on a call does not "relieve you from determining the outcome of the game". Would like to hear reply from official(s) who disagrees with this and why passing on a obvious foul with a second or so left releived you from any responsibility.

[firedoc]

I completely agree with your comments. Something which constitutes a foul in the 1st quarter also constitutes a foul with 10 seconds left in the game. See a foul, call a foul. One word of caution: don't nitpick on very minor offenses UNLESS you have been calling them all game.

[Rich]

A foul is contact that puts a player at a disadvantage not intended by the rules.

A player turning with the ball 70 feet away from the basket and heaving up a ball that will likely not reach the free throw line will not draw a foul in the first minute or the last. It is not the referee's job to bail out a player or team.

We simply don't talk about this play in the first minute because nobody attempts a 70 foot "shot" in the first minute.

I'm sorry if this is offensive to some, but effective game management dictates how a game is called. At the end of the game I will not hesitate to call a foul (I've called fouls where the lane was cleared with the FT deciding the outcome), but I will make sure it is a GOOD foul. Just as I would in the beginning of the game.

A team gets a rebound with .9 seconds left turns and heaves. There's contact. Calling a foul bails the team out IMO. I think you could get away with such a call at lower levels, but make this call at the varsity level? I couldn't imagine it.

Rich

[mikesears]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
A foul is contact that puts a player at a disadvantage not intended by the rules.

A player turning with the ball 70 feet away from the basket and heaving up a ball that will likely not reach the free throw line will not draw a foul in the first minute or the last. It is not the referee's job to bail out a player or team.

We simply don't talk about this play in the first minute because nobody attempts a 70 foot "shot" in the first minute.

I'm sorry if this is offensive to some, but effective game management dictates how a game is called. At the end of the game I will not hesitate to call a foul (I've called fouls where the lane was cleared with the FT deciding the outcome), but I will make sure it is a GOOD foul. Just as I would in the beginning of the game.

A team gets a rebound with .9 seconds left turns and heaves. There's contact. Calling a foul bails the team out IMO. I think you could get away with such a call at lower levels, but make this call at the varsity level? I couldn't imagine it.

Rich

I've got to agree and have experience with a partner making such a call in a girls Varsity game I worked several years ago.

Schools were friendly rivals because they used to play as a co-op team. Team A down by 1 by about 00:08.00 left on the clock. Girl dribbles to half court and heaves up a prayer with about :01 left, buzzer sounds, and I hear a whistle from T at same time as buzzer. We try to quickly talk him out of the foul but he insists. Player makes 2 of 3 with the lane cleared to win the game. Our ratings for that game were the worst for that year.

Maybe he believed that going to OT was a sign of poor officiating

[MN BB Ref]

Regardless of the probability of the shot being made, IMHO you have to call the foul here or else you are penalizing the team that was attempting the miracle shot. It MIGHT have gone in...probably not.

Lets face it, if they are fouled on a shot from half court or beyond, then the real problem is with the defense making such a stupid mistake. In this situation the coach should've pounded it into the player's heads to keep hands off. If they didn't do that why should we penalize the shooting team?

As for poor ratings after a game like that, I believe the coach deserves the poor ratings for allowing that foul to occur in the first place.

My two cents worth!

[Rich]

There are definitely two schools of thought here, and it's unlikely that members of one will convince members of the other to change sides.

Yes, the defender made a mistake. Yes, one can look at it that way. I just don't think calling a foul in that situation fits with the spirit and intent of the rules.

The coach of the team that benefits will think he got a gift and the other coach will feel he got screwed. It just isn't a good foul IMO, but I will recognize that others feel differently. Keep in mind that the people that feel differently are likely to not be the participants or the coaches

Rich

[williebfree]

My philosophy in this area is similiar to Firedoc's, consistency is the key.

There is a lot of judgement in the 70' "shot". Was the player focused on a teammate, or at the basket. Was the defender playing the ball or more aggressive, warranting an intentional foul (as dumb as the play would be)? The level of play would also influence my judgement.

I agree with Rich that it is easy to "pontificate" the "a foul is a foul" theology here on the internet, but what happens on the court may be different.

I do not get wrapped up in the concept that a call in the last seconds of the game "decides" the game anymore than the first whistle that an official blows. To me, conveying that much importance to "final" whistle tends fuel the myth that officials win and lose games.

Comments encouraged...

[MN BB Ref]

Originally posted by williebfree
I do not get wrapped up in the concept that a call in the last seconds of the game "decides" the game anymore than the first whistle that an official blows. To me, conveying that much importance to "final" whistle tends fuel the myth that officials win and lose games.

Comments encouraged...

I agree Willie. In reality there are dozens of moments during a game that an action by a team decides the final outcome. To point to one call and say that decided the game is ludicrous. Missing 10 free throws decides a game. Careless passes that are intercepted and converted into fast break points decide games. A decision by a ref does not in and of itself decide the outcome of a game...EVER! But boy is it hard to not feel that way when you are the one blowing the whistle at the end.

[MN 3 Sport Ref]

A tough sitch here IMO. From the original post it really sounds like the player was mugged. IMO if the contact was obvious and the now defensive player was making a legit attempt for the ball, we have to have a foul. If the player truely had controle of the ball and was tackled, would we have the fortitude to call and intentional or flagrant foul??? If the D player simply "crushed" the player in control of the ball it has to be whistled. However one could make a pretty good case that they were just very agressively going after the rebound. Now we have to determine whetjer the player was heaving the ball at the basket or just wildly flinging it away in a desparation pass. IMO you would have to be 110% or more sure that that player was making a shot atempt to award 3 throws.

You did the right thing IMO and huddled w/ partner to see what both saw. Obviously neither of you were SURE this was a shot attempt and went w/ the common foul.

I think some of us are being a little hard on Rich about burying the whistle. I think the jist of his point is that contact (that doesn't draw blood) that does not determine the outcome of the game can be ignored near the horn. OBviously if a team is in position to win/tie a game our fortitude must increase and we must make the call no matter how "displeasing" to some it may be.

This is where we get payed the big bucks, to decide intent and spirit of the rules as they apply, especially when the game is on the line. IMO a good 15 sec conference w/ your partner to discuss some of this at the inevitable TO w/ under a minute to play is a good time to do this. Then you are both on the same page for sitchs that may occur.

Others also had a good point about the defense "not being smart" by fouling here. Were they simply going after the rebound or was it a legitamite "stupid" foul. We need to have the fortitude to penalize accordingly.

Sorry to ramble here but the last minute of a close game is what separates the good officials from the average ones. We have allowed the kids to play 31 minutes of basketball working to decide the outcome. This includes Turnovers and missing freethrows etc. We tend to use that reason as to why a good team lost a game. However we also need to apply that to why the other team has kept themself in position to win a game. We cannot use the former thinking to bail a team out or to think a team does not deserve to win. We need to be strong and allow them to decide that last minute as well, no matter what the implications may be. Sitchs like this are what should really make you truely love officiating (gosh that sounded really sentimental)

[Edited by MN 3 Sport Ref on Feb 5th, 2003 at 10:29 AM]

[Dan_ref]

I don't understand how anyone can go into a game with a philosophy that dictates what will be called when. Each situation is judged on it's own. A rule of thumb is one thing, but to say "never call a foul" is not good.

I also don't see what coaches ratings have to do with anything. You are not doing your job if you don't get poor coaches ratings every now & then. If you worry about them going in...???

[hawkk]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser


Yes, the defender made a mistake. Yes, one can look at it that way. I just don't think calling a foul in that situation fits with the spirit and intent of the rules.
Rich

??!! Really this becomes a question of degree. But if a player is making a buzzer heave, and a defender makes contact that affects the heave I think this is something that has to be called -- otherwise, the "smart" move becomes to hack the heaver. Yes, the heave is a low probabiblity deal, but it is not legal to take away that slim chance. [But I also agree not many are going to change their minds; I suspect the real difference is not whether refs would ever call this type of foul, but the seriousness of the foul before they would decide to call it -- everyone is going to call the tackle, no one is going to call the ticky-tack, but there is a lot of room in between those that refs are going to disagree. And I'll bet a lot would call it differently at the end of Q1-Q3 than at the end of Q4 with the game on the line.]

[DownTownTonyBrown]

To take a player attempting a 3-pointer from so far away from the basket that the odds of making the shot are 1 in a 100 (or less) and put them on the free throw line where their odds are 50-90 percent is not being fair to anyone. If you make a call like that you have just provided a very distinct and very large advantage to one team.

A foul is a foul and I don't think we will find anyone on this forum that disagrees. However the original scenario we were disucssing, I interpretted as two players fighting for a rebound and one coach screaming that he wanted three shots because his player was attempting to throw the ball the length of the court with 0.9 seconds left... or something like that. The immediacy of the situation is not my fault as an official. The immediacy is a problem for the team behind (they placed themselves there) and it is not my responsibility/position to help a team overcome that immediacy.

A foul call and a subsequent set of freethrows is an attempt to compensate for illegal actions, a foul. The compensation (freethrows) should be relatively commensurate with the loss. A possibly illegal act that removes a player's opportunity to make a 1 in a 100 shot should not be compensated with three opportunities to make freethrows.

This is the engineer in me coming out.... a 1 in a 100 shot => 1% opportunity to make 3 points. 3 free throws, assuming 75% success = 0.75 * 0.75 * 0.75 => 42% opportunity to make 3 points. I don't actually make calculations like this during a game BUT THESE TWO ARE NOT EQUAL by a very large, disparate amount. If you make that call, you are determining the game because you just provided a 40% great opportunity for that team to catch up. If you don't make the call you may have allowed the defense to illegally influence the 1% opportunity. For this particular situation I think it is better to allow the possible 1% influence than it is to assuredly CREATE the 40% opportunity.

The fat lady may not be singing but she is warming up long before the last second.

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
This is the engineer in me coming out.... a 1 in a 100 shot => 1% opportunity to make 3 points. 3 free throws, assuming 75% success = 0.75 * 0.75 * 0.75 => 42% opportunity to make 3 points. I don't actually make calculations like this during a game BUT THESE TWO ARE NOT EQUAL by a very large, disparate amount. If you make that call, you are determining the game because you just provided a 40% great opportunity for that team to catch up. If you don't make the call you may have allowed the defense to illegally influence the 1% opportunity. For this particular situation I think it is better to allow the possible 1% influence than it is to assuredly CREATE the 40% opportunity.

Unbelievable. My jaw is on the floor. Your quote "If you make that call, you are determining the game because you just provided a 40% great opportunity for that team to catch up." is the one that burns me up. It's not about you, it's about the participants. The participant committed the foul. The fouling player is the one who handed the 40% greater opportunity to the team that was fouled, not the official.

The math thing is ridiculous. Say I have a player shooting 85% on FTs but only 15% on threes. Anytime she gets fouled on a three-point attempt, you should ignore it based on your logic.

[Andy]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown

This is the engineer in me coming out.... a 1 in a 100 shot => 1% opportunity to make 3 points. 3 free throws, assuming 75% success = 0.75 * 0.75 * 0.75 => 42% opportunity to make 3 points. I don't actually make calculations like this during a game BUT THESE TWO ARE NOT EQUAL by a very large, disparate amount. If you make that call, you are determining the game because you just provided a 40% great opportunity for that team to catch up. If you don't make the call you may have allowed the defense to illegally influence the 1% opportunity. For this particular situation I think it is better to allow the possible 1% influence than it is to assuredly CREATE the 40% opportunity.

The fat lady may not be singing but she is warming up long before the last second.

Sorry, Tony....while I agree with your math and theory, it is NOT the official that is providing the disparity to one team or another. We, as officials, do not make up things, we react to the players actions on the court. The defensive player, by fouling a "shooter" 50 feet from the basket is the person responsible for turning that 1% chance into a 40% chance.

[MN 3 Sport Ref]

Originally posted by Andy

Sorry, Tony....while I agree with your math and theory, it is NOT the official that is providing the disparity to one team or another. We, as officials, do not make up things, we react to the players actions on the court. The defensive player, by fouling a "shooter" 50 feet from the basket is the person responsible for turning that 1% chance into a 40% chance.

I agree w/ andy here. We just have to be 100% sure that this was a shot attempt. That is where the dificulty comes in. especially since the chances of the shot actually going in are low.